Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 Next
Comments 14051 to 14100:
-
nigelj at 06:26 AM on 22 July 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #29
Something else thats totally depressing yet not surprising. How the Trump administration wants to limit the Endangered Species Act
-
sauerj at 02:31 AM on 22 July 201897% of House Republicans foolishly reject carbon taxes
Great article Dana! ... Grassroots large-scale political-will for a rev-neutral CT is definitely far from sufficient, but it will eventually get there (but alas probably not for another 10-20+ years, much later than it should be, by any measure of socially justice). I do believe that grassroots political-will does help in no small way, for example, like for volunteer lobbying for sake of the NRA, or in the case of pushing the DOJ to back-off of separating children from their parents (though there wasn't a competing corporation in this case). Building effective CC action political-will pays off in two forms: 1) ballot box (and in getting the most CC action candidates into the general election ballot), 2) lobbying (call in, etc) after the election; both involve substantial & radically active grass-roots. ... Even though polls say the majority are in favor of a CT; it just isn't radical enough (yet) to build substantial enough grass-roots lobbying.
Also, one other thought: Getting both parties on board (non-partisan) is also semi-required so that the CT policy has durability when the ruling party switches. Industry & thus the economy will be more likely to hold off on making fundamental changes (in reaction to a gradually increasing tax) if they believe the next regime will repeal the tax. The CT has got to be so NON-partisan (politically universal) that the tax is, by the far majority, deemed the right thing to do come what may.
Thanks again for the great article and for mentioning CCL. -
nigelj at 11:40 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Scaddenp @24
A harm perogative has to be the basis of concerns about climate change and a carbon levy (fee, tax) because harm is what we are fundamentally concerned about. But I think you are right its far from sufficient to connect with conservatives.
I don't know how climate change issues are framed in authoritarian terms, but I think the Democrats might benefit from a slightly authoritarian leader, within reason. Bernie Sanders looked like this to me but so did H Clinton but she was let down by other problems. New Zealand had a centre left / liberal government with a moderately authoritarian leader (Helen Clark) and won three elections in a row. It was a type of benevolent authoritarianism and she was regarded by virtually everyone as very strong, even by her opponents.
A carbon levy could possibly be framed around loyalty to your children. But the challenge with framing a carbon levy around loyalty is loyalty operates between friends, family, and tribe and country and a carbon levy is intended to fix a problem of global scale. It would almost require extending the definition of loyalty.
It would be easier to frame the levy around the idea of purity.
-
scaddenp at 09:15 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
OPOF - I think you are over-estimating completely the amount of thinking going on. The perceptions are based heavily on filtering information sources which in turn are selected by deep biases we all have. You are arguing for moral approach purely based on a harm prerogative. Typical of a liberal mind set. Conservatives balance harm against authority and loyalty to a far greater degree. Too easy to talk past them if you ignore that.
-
nigelj at 09:10 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
We had something similar in NZ. The centre right government of the day promoted tax cuts and a general user pays agenda, and introduced partial user charges for surgery costs in what had been a free tax payer funded hospital services. However this did not go well even with the parties own supporters, and was dropped quite quickly. It made no sense anyway.
However other tax funded public services have been replaced with user charges. I have mixed feelings. Sometimes it makes logical sense, sometimes its obviously driven by ideology. Some politicians would charge people for breathing the air if they could get away with it. If it doesn't have a price it means nothing to them. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing, and fail to see the wider benefits of easily accessible public services funded through taxes.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:48 AM on 21 July 201897% of House Republicans foolishly reject carbon taxes
- A major requirement is for the money to run in a nomination battle, not an election. That's where the anti AGW crowd exerts a lot of their influence in the US system. Especially effective when the state legislature has gerrymandered the electoral districts so that your party's nominee is guaranteed to win most of the congressional seats regardless of the candidates. Once your puppet is in office, continue to flood him with lobbying.
- Independence is great until it starts doing something you don't like. Then you need to gut it like a fish. It's like "free speech": I like it for me, but I don't want to hear it from you.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:41 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
In Alberta, after campaigning on a "lower taxes" pledge, one flavour of the former Conservative Party government introduced a whole bunch of "user fees".
Looked like a tax, smelled like a tax, targetted at specific government servies, but enough of their supporters bought into the idea that it was different that they got away with it - no election promises broken!
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 21 July 201897% of House Republicans foolishly reject carbon taxes
I dont think you are going to convince the GOP, because they just hate taxes, its become tribal and irrational, and they are taking stubborn bottom line positions. No amount of evidence showing it won't harm the economy will change this intransigent mindset. Carbon tax is a good idea, but you will have to wait until Democrats have a majority.
A couple of things I just don't understand about America;
1)There's no doubt about the powerful influence of lobby groups on politicians, but why is the influence stronger on the GOP compared to the Democrats? Given the Democrats appear to support a carbon tax?
2) You have this independent EPA set up to deal with environmental problems and to stand above partisan bickering, so why not actually use it?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:38 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
The correct term for what is being discussed is 'Fine'.
Fines are applied to activities that are understood to be unacceptable and need to be limited or curtailed. And the amount of fine is increased to the level required to achieve the correction of behaviour that is needed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:41 AM on 21 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
The decision making about what to do about the better awareness and understanding that climate science develops is 'political'.
And in the so-called more advanced nations the power of misleading marketing that gets people to primitively react selfishly has grown in abuse (less ethical behaviour increasing, especially in politics). It is also abused in less advanced nations, but it should be declining in power and abuse in truly more advanced nations.
In truly more advanced nations the strong majority should be people with advanced altruistic thinking over-powering temptations to be selfish. In those nations that deserve to be considered to be World Powers all activity (business and politics) would be governed by altruistic thinkers helping everyone else be more aware and understanding, helping everyone else become more altruistic.
Tragically, many of the more powerful nations are experiencing a damaging surge of perceptions governed by primitive selfishness winning power.
Each person's perception is what they really believe. And when bad people can succeed at convincing easily impressed people to believe and support harmful selfish primitive desires, the result is delays in humanity's progress and advancement (or worse, serious damage done to the future of humanity).
Calling efforts to correct undeniably incorrectly developed harmful ways of living a 'Tax' plays the political game the way the bad people want to play it (the perception of reality can Trump actual Reality). It plays into their hand because they have been successfully stacking the deck in their favour by convincing many people to believe that 'Tax is Bad'.
The bad thinking includes discounting the future negative impacts that others would face, and comparing that diminished impact to the perceptions of loss by people today who would have to be stopped from benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels.
The reality is that it is simply unacceptable for one group of people to do something that negatively affects another group of people (future generations are Other people). And playing the tax-name game also gets in to creating perceptions of ways that the Tax will benefit people today, even though additional negative impacts imposed on others continue to increase, with the amount of the tax being negotiated based on discounted perceptions of the future costs.
The 'perception is reality' crowd need to be over-powered and better educated by those who are more aware of and better understand Real Reality. Many perceptions need to be 'corrected' for humanity to develop truly sustainable advancements rather than develop and defend undeserved perceptions of advancement and superiority.
-
michael sweet at 23:42 PM on 20 July 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #28
The New York Times recently ran an article on laborers suffering heat stroke and other heat related problems now in India (and other tropical countries.) No need to wait for thirty years for these problems.
They cite this peer reviewed article which estimates $2 trillion per year in losses in tropical countries by 2030 from laborers overheatig alone. It would be much cheaper to build out renewable energy than to absorb these losses (not even counting that renewable energy is cheaper in the long run).
Since I labor outside every day in Tampa, Florida, I know from personal experience that a change in temperature from 90F to 93F means going from just bearable to overheating, I can see where the increase in temperature that has already occured would cause heat stroke in many laborers. In the Times they interview several workers who suffered heat stroke multiple times.
-
nigelj at 14:37 PM on 20 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
My two cents worth on a carbon levy and dividend. Firstly I agree with OPOF its probably best to call this "thing" a carbon levy (and dividend) to avoid the connotations of a tax that some find undesirable, and to avoid a negotiation about other taxes being lowered to compensate as has been pointed out.
In Australasia we consider a levy a temporary form of tax which does sit well with a carbon levy.
However this is all treading close to using spin to disguise a concept, something that irritates me, and I would suggest fighting hard to deny its some 'form' of tax would be unwise, if pressed into a debate on the subject. If that makes any sense.
Its a pigovian tax, but has the additional feature of deterring use. So its not entirely just compensating for the damage caused while perpetuating the activity.
I think this carbon levy is not the ideal way, but its a very reasonable way in an imperfect world. It is apparently thought to be acceptable to the GOP, but I note they have recently had a vote on it in congress that did not go well for carbon levy and dividend. But this might change.
Its a hard reality that any proposal is going to have to have wide political appeal.
Regarding rapid termination of use of fossil fuels, although desirable in theory, it is not possible to do it instantly, because it would cause some form of blow out in inflation, or economic crash that wont really be much help to anyone. The rate fossil fuels are phased down must equal the speed we can realstically create renewable energy, more or less. However the economy of WW2 (a five year period) shows rapid changes in production priorities are possible if desired, so phase down of fossil fuel use could be considerably faster than is currently being achieved.
So a carbon levy and dividend could be increased quite rapidly over time providing it does not generate unacceptably large inflation. Right now we have more of a global deflation problem anyway, so inflation is not a major concern.
-
scaddenp at 14:29 PM on 20 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
OPOF. I agree that need to curtail, but I also think that in the hard reality of western democracies, you have to make policy that isnt totally offensive to conservative sensibilities. Direct curtailment would be. The ETS or carbon tax are both easier to sell.
We are partly in this mess because the issue has become polarized on political divides, especially in the US. This polarization has also been fuelled by hard left factions using climate action as an excuse to push other agendas especially anti-capitalist. Why anyone would think that this would be persuasive to conservatives is beyond me but the damage has been done and a way out of that polarization is hard to see. However, climate effects are becoming much harder to ignore so I think ETS and CT have more hope in the future. By constrast, I dont think there is a snowballs chance in hell of pushing anything that amounts to ban on FF use through the US system.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:32 PM on 20 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
scaddenp@16,
It may be pitched as a pigouvian tax, because that is a developed term that sort of relates to this issue. But the real issue is that the future generations are going to face the consequences of the activity that is 'permitted because the ones benefiting paid a pigouvian tax'.
The reality is that the activity needs to be terminated, the quicker the better, not be excused by having a premium paid to permit doing it. The richest can afford to behave better. Somehow they need to be made to be ethical altruistic deserving winners. A pigouvian tax does not do that. It just legitimizes the understandably unacceptable behaviour, particularly for the richest who can figure out ways to get a net-personal-benefit even with the tax having to be paid.
And the related understanding is that, in addition to no longer benefiting from the harmful activity, the current generation owes future generations a proper clean up (CO2 rapidly back below 350 ppm), or actually pay to perform conservative mitigation of the impacts done so that future generations do not experience any negative consequences.
That leads to the understanding that a carbon levy to gradually reduce the rate of additional harm creation is an unethical action by current day generations. Many perceptions of prosperity and opportunity in the current generation are fraudulent. They rely on continuing to get away with understandably unacceptable behaviour.
An example I am very familiar with is the actions by Alberta business and political leadership (supported by federal leadership) to expand the rate of oil sands extraction in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. There was little doubt about the unacceptability of trying to get away with that type of action. Places like Alberta should not be 'protected' from facing a significant correction of developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity, just like any other unsustainable marketplace bubble would burst (and a damage causing bubble should be popped sooner rather than later to limit the damage done - especially when the ones trying to benefit from the bubble may escape any of the damaging consequences).
And, in spite of all of that, calling it a tax is bound to be less successful because it does not plainly make the case that the activity needs to be rapidly terminated. And tax has been turned into a dirty word, particularly in the nations that have the most changing of ways to achieve, and have to pay the most for the clean up of damage already done.
I will admit that rapid curtailing of the undeniably harmful activity appears to be unlikely (politics has become highly unethical in supposedly more advanced nations). But I maintain that the unacceptability of the activity and the unacceptability of the response to the understanding that it is unsustainable and harmful, are a necessary part of the required learning process. My bigger concern is that the gradual transition that protects the undeserved perceptions of prosperity and opportunity can result in transitioning to alternatives that are also damaging unsustainable ways of living. It is likely that without correcting the perceptions of what is acceptable, one damaging unsustainable activity will be replaced by another damaging unsustainable activity. The least acceptable way of doing something that can be gotten away with Wins, unless the understanding of what is allowed to compete for popularity and profitability, what is acceptable, changes (that is my ethical engineering methodology - only the truly acceptable alternatives, the ones that are truly sustainable, get to compete).
-
scaddenp at 09:35 AM on 20 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
I think that "levy" sounds better but formally it is a pigouvian tax.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:52 AM on 20 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Carbon Tax is not a helpful term. The following is a lot of thoughts, but it is all related to understanding that point.
The ideal objective of human activity is to make the future for humanity better than the present.
As a minimum, the future should not be negatively impacted by the activities of the present day.
It is essential to have Altruistic helpfulness limit Egoist self interest. The creative development power of self-interest is important, but it must be limited by caring to ensure that what develops is sustainable, not harmful to the future of humanity in any way, with the truly valuable things being developments that are sustainable improvements of the way that humans live.
The Sustainable Development Goals, which include climate action, are a comprehensive presentation of what is required to be achieved. And most of the goals can easily be understood to be required corrections of what the marketplace competition has developed.
Climate science, and the related climate actions to develop a sustainable better future, has significantly exposed the unsustainable damaging reality of what competition for popularity and profitability can develop, and has been developing. The push back against the required corrections, the attacks on increased awareness and understanding, has especially exposed the damaging power of misleading marketing appeals for people to be more selfish (greedier or less tolerant of others).
What needs to be done due to the improved awareness and understanding developed by climate science must be fundamentally well understood. That will result in the understanding that it is incorrect to call efforts to correct what has developed a Tax.The currently developed burning of fossil fuels is fundamentally unsustainable. Therefore, to justify it, there must be powerful proof that the future generations would undeniably appreciate that they got a net-benefit from the activity. Making the efforts to slowly curtail the damaging activity a source of tax revenue provides no future benefit. All that happens to the future generations is an increase of the negative impacts, including having less non-renewable buried hydrocarbons available for a potentially developed sustainable use (or for a true emergency use).
It is not appropriate to refer to any actions that are implemented to correct the incorrect developments of the marketplace as a Tax. They need to be understood to be corrective measures that will rapidly correct what needs to be corrected, to limit the damage that is done. The success of such measures will result in the elimination of the need for the corrective actions. And to make the future better than the present, the corrective actions must also undo the damage that has already been done, or fully fund the measures required to ensure that no negative consequence is experienced at any time in the future. That means that everything that needs to be done to deal with the already created impacts has been sustainably conservatively performed by the generation that generated the future impacts. Conservatively meaning the measures to address the future impacts have been done in a way that will almost certainly survive virtually indefinitely into the future without any additional actions required by future generations.
So, one acceptable action would be keeping the wealth collected from the corrective actions in a fund that is certain to have value into the future. But, investments in the marketplace will only be certain to have future value if the activities in the marketplace are truly sustainable. That means that, other than the current generation building all the corrections of what has developed to make what is built survive into the distant future, the entire marketplace must be 'only truly sustainable activity'. And the revenue from the actions to correct the incorrect developments can then be invested in that truly sustainable marketplace to actually have future value, to truly benefit future generations. But even that may not be sufficient to negate the negative consequences that have been created.
So the most important action is to stop making things worse for the future, including putting a stop to excuses like 'the marketplace always grows so the future generations will just be richer because that is the way the marketplace works (a briefer way to say it is 'I declare that things will only get better in the future because of the history of human ingenuity, therefore they will get better, so I don't have to stop creating harmful consequences by using up non-renewable resources').
Taxes also need to be understood to be 'charitable donations by prescription, not by choice' to provide the funding for actions that are more effectively achieved through a collective approach, for actions that the marketplace cannot be expected to effectively address.
Many problems can develop if a corrective action is referred to as a Tax:
- People will not be encouraged to understand why the correction is required or understand that when the correction is achieved things will be more decent (not cheaper or more enjoyable for them, more decent for everyone especially for the future generations).
- Many people are easily impressed to dislike the idea of taxes. And they will simply transfer that dislike to climate science and be easily impressed to deny the awareness and understanding that climate science has developed, and continues to expand and improve.
- People who are tempted to 'agree to this action' if they will pay less 'other taxes' will resist the increase of 'other taxes' as this corrective measure succeeds and becomes a diminishing source of revenue. And the reduction of 'proper taxes' will be more beneficial to people who do not need help. It will do nothing to help achieve the other sustainable development goals, and may cripple efforts to sustain any achievement towards those other goals as the revenue from the Carbon Tax declines.
- As the correction is achieved and the revenue from this source declines there will be reluctance to increase the proper taxes that were incorrectly reduced. This will result in even less help for the less fortunate, or result in deliberate actions by leaders to fail to ratchet up the corrective action to minimize the negative consequences imposed on future generations. This could end up like cigarettes, a damaging relied upon source of popular support and funding.
What obviously needs to be done is reducing the costs and damage imposed on the future generations. That is what the collected corrective penalty should be dedicated to, along with other tax collection since the collected corrective penalty will not properly penalize the ones who got the most benefit from creating harm to future generations. Being fairer would require a rigorous evaluation of how every rich person got rich since 1990 and assessing back taxes based on how much they benefited from the irresponsible creation of more future problems.
Tax collection needs to be reasonably reliable, reasonably sustainable. The failure to have a reliable sustainable tax collection system will develop the future surprise of not having the money needed to properly fund actions the decent and ethical provision of help that needs to be done collectively in order to be done for the benefit of all (for the benefit of the poorer and the future generations, and any other things that need to be done that the marketplace fails to properly do).
Private interests competing to be temporarily perceived to be the winners of popularity and profitability will focus on maximizing short-term perceptions and the interests of the 'customers that matter most' (completely ignoring the interests or needs of portions of the population, especially ignoring future generations, because those portions of the population are irrelevant to their winning).
Private for profit can succeed by not providing what everybody's needs (Hot Christmas toys do not get produced in time for everyone who wants them for Christmas, and that is fine for Christmas toys).
Private for profit does an excellent job of meeting the high-end desires of the richest. It does a poorer job of decently developing and delivering what the less rich desire. And, at best, private for profit competition will ignore the needs of the poorest or the future generations. At its worst it will do damage to those 'externalities', those things that are not relevant to maximizing the profitability of a pursuit (read the likes of Naomi Klein's books to understand how damaging the production of 'goods for the middle-class and lower-middle class masses' develops to be and how difficult it is to correct what has developed.)
Being able to abuse misleading marketing to increase the chances of 'success' of an understandably unsustainable and harmful pursuit of profit is one of the most damaging things that marketplace competition has ever developed. People can be easily tempted by appeals to primitive selfish interests. Those appeals can easily over-power a person's natural ability to thoughtfully consider what is actually going on and determine how they can be most altruistically helpful.
So, all of that relates to why the efforts to correct the incorrect developments as exposed by climate science should not be referred to as a Tax. If that is too much to consider, then just consider that Tax has been turned into a dirty word in the minds of many (maybe all) of the people who need to be convinced to change their minds so they choose to behave better, do more altruistic self-limiting of their developed and developing selfish desires and interests.
-
Sunspot at 22:41 PM on 19 July 2018SkS Analogy 13 - Water glasses and Greenhouse gases
Every morning, my lawn is covered with H2O from the atmosphere.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:17 AM on 19 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
The Alberta Carbon Levy and rebate approach also limited the rebate to middle income and poorer. That increases the motivation for richer people to reduce their burning of fossil fuels because they get no off-set rebate. They just pay the added fee. That way the poorest also actually make money from the beginning of the program, and make more money as the carbon levy and rebate increases.
That highlights the flaw of using a carbon tax to reduce other taxes. The reducton of other taxes often means even bigger benefits for the richer people. It can also mean little or no benefit for the poorer people, just the extra cost of the smaller amount of energy they have to use to survive.
-
scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 19 July 2018It's the sun
Theodoric - what is lacking is any evidence for other solar changes influencing climate. The magnetic field has fluctuated and reversed throughout earth history without any sort effect on climate such as we see now. By constrast, the effects of GHG increases are precisely what we would expect from well-established physics and changes in GHG throughout earth history is closely linked to climate effects.
"To lump everything not Sun related into a CO2 bucket seems a bit hasty"
That is a straw man argument. Even a cursory reading of just SPM of the IPCC reports would tell you that all known influences on climate are considered.
If you want to argue for some other model for climate, then you need to present evidence. Start by presenting how much extra "energy from Sun and beyond" would heat the earth surface. (Depleting ozone cools the planet by the way)
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 19 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
I dont think you need to have global agreement or even uniform rate - you just apply carbon tax at border to anything that cant demonstrate that tax is paid. The US has enough economic muscle that even if it alone did tax, it would cause a scramble for FF-free energy sources in those trying to sell into US. EU, China and USA between them would bring whole world into line. Increasing the price of something is the pretty standard way to reduce demand for goods.
-
Theodoric at 02:09 AM on 19 July 2018It's the sun
Has anyone considered the wide variety of other influences on the earth besides the Sun and CO2?
Permit me to throw one out here: What about the precititous decline in magnetic field strength of the earth in the last 150 years? Is this not a path for energy from the Sun and beyond to find its way into our atmosphere? It seems to me to be a bit bigger than a "hole in the ozone"...
That is only one of many global situations that might be of concern to a climate concerned scientist.To lump everything not Sun related into a CO2 bucket seems a bit hasty.
Moderator Response:[DB] Given that air is not ferrous, the changes in the magnetic field strength do not amount to much, on the timescales of human lifetimes:
"The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record."
And
"The science shows that magnetic pole reversal is – in terms of geologic time scales – a common occurrence that happens gradually over millennia. While the conditions that cause polarity reversals are not entirely predictable – the north pole's movement could subtly change direction, for instance – there is nothing in the millions of years of geologic record to suggest that any of the 2012 doomsday scenarios connected to a pole reversal should be taken seriously."
"What would happen if the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed?
Magnetic field wandering would let the aurora borealis occur at any latitude, but other than that there would be no noticeable effects other than changes in the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate to the ground. Even this effect is minimal because we can visit the Arctic and Antarctic and only receive a slight increase in cosmic rays. So long as the strength of the field remains high during this field wandering event, the effects should be pretty benign."
"To lump everything not Sun related into a CO2 bucket seems a bit hasty"
Actual scientists have already studied this, summing up 170 years of research into this graphic:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:08 AM on 19 July 2018Book Review: A Global Warming Primer, by Jeffrey Bennett
nigelj@14,
MTBE is just one clear example that things do not have to be corrected by compromising what is understood to be required with what has become popular and profitable.
Ending the production of MTBE did not happen slowly through market actions. The production of MTBE was legislated out of existence, very rapidly.
The only difference regarding fossil fuel burning is the magnitude of its developed popularity and profitabilty. Its unacceptability, due to its undeniable unsustainability and the undeniable harm it causes to future generations, is undeniable.
The failure of leaders to have to openly admit that fact in order to remain as leaders is a serious problem that is 'external' to the marketplace.
-
Evan at 22:49 PM on 18 July 2018SkS Analogy 13 - Water glasses and Greenhouse gases
nigelj@1 Thanks for your suggestions. We will work them into a future version. I added a link for the CC equation. I did not use the Wiki link, because I think it is too technical for non-specialists
-
nigelj at 18:05 PM on 18 July 2018Book Review: A Global Warming Primer, by Jeffrey Bennett
All solutions to the climate problem probably have to work within the framework of a market economy, because this is only going to change structurally quite slowly. Unless it suddenly self destructs or something.
Carbon tax and dividend has the virtue of least negative impact on how markets work. It could be the main tool, but it seems unlikely that it would be the only tool.
There are other things we can do to make markets work better. Profits and economic growth don't recognise environmental damage, yet they are the main numbers we have when evaluating companies or state agencies.
We should develop an environmental index or rating of some kind and apply it to companies and other organisations. Some business organisations do this and a state agency could do it more comprehensively. Such an agency could be somewhat independent of government. However it needs to be robust and not just greenwashing.
This would make performance open and transparent and could help consumers make choices, and push executives into making better environmental decisions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:56 PM on 18 July 2018Book Review: A Global Warming Primer, by Jeffrey Bennett
The solution starts with collectively admitting that it is unacceptable to create negative consequences for others, especially for future generations, no mater how popular and profitable an activity is or could be for a portion of current day humanity.
Without that admission, what develops to replace fossil fuel burning could also be unsustainable and harmful.
A carbon tax is only part of the solution. And it will not get the required correction to occur as rapidly as needed to limit and correct for the negative future consequences.
A carbon tax simply makes it more expensive to burn fossil fuels than getting energy alternative ways.
The majority of the population will end up with a significantly larger portion of their income needing to be spent on energy or retro-fits/replacements of their existing material things to reduce energy needs.
The richer minority will be relatively unaffected. The increased energy cost will be a tiny factor. And it is typically the richest who consume the most, including energy. The richest can afford to behave better, and should be required to behave better to maintain their status relative to others. Getting them to lead by becoming totally carbon neutral super-low consumers first will not happen through a carbon tax. A carbon tax will also not discourage the richer people from pursuing profit from fossil fuel burning.
A more effective solution would be to require the richest and the winners of leadership to be more ethically altruistic, to truly justify that they deserve to be Winners or Leaders. If they fail to act more ethically altruistically than their peers, or those of lower status than them, then they deserve to be taken down a notch, through legal means based on their failure to be more helpful, ethical and altruistic.
-
Riduna at 14:26 PM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
A carbon tax is certainly one way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but it is only practical if applied by all emitters, preferably at a uniform rate. How is that to be achieved? And how many years/decades would it take to achieve global agreement on the rate and date of application?
Other approaches are to adopt measures which reduce demand for fossil fuels by making products of fossil fuels less attractive to consumers of electricity, transport and machine operation.
This has begun and is likely to progress rapidly over the next decade with development of ability to generate and store energy more cheaply from renewable sources and improved battery/hydro storage.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:19 PM on 18 July 2018Book Review: A Global Warming Primer, by Jeffrey Bennett
I have some thoughts to share regarding the faith in the marketplace to produce good results (or faith in leaders/winners to produce Good Results). These thoughts are a work in progress, open to being revised for Good Reasons (not for poor excuses).
It is essential to encourage people to have helpful good reasons for liking what they like and doing what they do. The marketplace competitions for popularity and profitability do not do that very well. In fact, with passion triggering marketing, the marketplace can powerfully encourage the opposite to develop.
Allowing everyone to be freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please can develop serious problems. The success of misleading marketing encouraging people to be more selfish (egoist) and less ethical (less altruistic) is a serious problem. Many people are easily tempted to be primitively defensive and selfish rather than 'thoughtfully increasing their awareness and understanding to considerately ethically altruistically self-limit their behaviour'.
When stepping beyond the efforts to increase awareness and understanding of what is going on regarding climate science, I strongly caution people to carefully qualify suggestions that the marketplace can provide solutions (even if externally increasing the marketplace price of something will undeniably reduce its popularity relative to alternatives).
Caution: Freedom needs to be qualified by being inextricably linked to the responsibility to be as aware and understanding as possible and to strive to help develop sustainable improvements for others, help achieve (or improve) the Sustainable Development Goals - all of them.
Warning: A true believer in the power of the free market will not accept that any external influence is required. Their belief is that the free market will produce a good result if it is completely free from 'external meddling'. That, of course, leads to the thorny bit about 'externalities being understood to be ignored by the free market'. To a free market purist, 'the development of a sustainable better future for all of humanity' will naturally be achieved if everyone is freer to do as they please in the market. They believe that Developing Good Results is intrinsic to free market competition. That is a dogmatic belief and is clearly not supported by the developed evidence. The reality of all the damaging developments of the market have to be twisted into something that can be blamed on something like 'external influences trying to choose winners'.
'Appearing to be a winner of a competition' is not the same as 'deserving to be a winner based on a detailed evaluation of the actions that led to their winning, as well as their actions after they won, to confirm the helpful ethical legitimacy of the apparent winner'.
Freedom must be governed or limited by ethically science-minded altruism (Good Reasoning - thoughtful consideration of how to help, not harm, others based on pursuing increased awareness and understanding of what is actually going on). Freedom that is not governed by helpful science-minded ethical altruism Will develop damaging results.
Undeniably, there needs to be diligent effort to ensure that everyone is behaving helpfully, with rule of law being governed by helping to sustainably improve the future for all of humanity.
The ideal would be for everyone to be ethically altruistically self-governing or self-limiting with the result being no need for laws or enforcement. It would be a society with Plato's philosopher kings as leaders succeeding in helping everybody else become philosopher kings. It would be a society that took heed of John Stuart Mill's warning in “On Liberty”; “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
That ideal will never be the reality. What has developed, primarily because of freedom of people to get away with unethical harmful actions was bluntly observed in the 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future”. That report unflinchingly and accurately declared the type of winners and leaders that were developing. I para-phrase the point as follows - Damaging Winners/Leaders act as they do because they have the freedom to get away with it: the people that their actions harm, especially the future generations, do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge the decisions of the unethical winners/leaders; they have to suffer the consequences while the unethical winners enjoy the spoils of victory, enjoy benefiting from actions that ruin things for Other people who the undeserving winners have little reason to fear retaliation from.
And an insidious part of freedom is the way that it can actually amplify the magnitude of damage done by unethical winners. Exposing the unacceptability of the actions of the undeserving winners is not enough (Read Naomi Klein's No is not Enough). By winning wealth and power they can influence the making-up and enforce of rules 'in their favour'. They can reduce the limits on unethical behaviour. And they can abuse the law to discourage or punish ethical altruistic attempts to help other people become more aware and understanding of the importance of being helpfully ethically altruistic.
And unacceptable developed results of less ethical people winning can also harden the unethical behaviour. It can develop authoritarian police states or abuse the power of misleading marketing that tempts people to be primitively selfish. Either result develops unjustified popularity and profitability of understandably unsustainable and harmful activity and makes it more difficult to correct the damaging development.
People develop their ways of thinking and resulting actions based on their inherent characteristics modified by what they experience and learn from. People can become more Selfishly Conniving (Harmful) or more Altruistically Wiser (Helpful).
The attitudes people develop will be influenced by the environment they develop in. The ability to be better informed and understanding of what is going on is inherent in everyone. Only the most desperate and poorest have an excuse for acting unacceptably (and they can be helped to learn to be better, to become philosopher kings). Everyone else chooses their developed attitudes beliefs and actions. And what they do based on that knowledge is also 'their choice'. They can choose to be helpful or harmful. And the ones choosing to be harmful often try to develop excuse to justify their choice. One of their best excuses is to claim that winners simply deserve to be winners - Done. Their next axiom, the fall back if their first claim is not convincing enough for them to win, is that what they want has to be considered. If they do not have the power to do as they please they will demand that what is understandably helpful has to be compromised (harmed) by 'considering' their interests 'in order to be fair to them'. And they may consider anything other than fully winning their way to be unfair to them.
The results of Freedom can be Helpfully Altruistic or Harmfully Selfish. It all depends on what Wins. Injustice or Justice can win in any system. An authoritarian dictatorship can be ruled by a philosopher king or a despot. And either of those can also win the leadership in a democracy. And helpful or harmful business activity (pursuits of popularity and profitability) can win in the free market or communism.
A key is the potential for success of passion triggering appeals (harmful misleading marketing) that can encourage individuals to allow the dogmatic adoption of understandably harmful primal interests to over-power their potential to helpfully thoughtfully consider what should be done. If enough individuals develop a united front pursuing a diversity of unacceptable interests, the result will be a diversity of injustices. The harm done by those damaging collectives need to be limited by the development of an over-powering collective governed by altruistic desires to correct the injustices and achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals.
-
scaddenp at 09:01 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Returning the money per capita instead of per emissions means that if you use less carbon than average, then you are actually on the make. That is a more powerful incentive to reduce carbon than just paying more your petrol.
-
Wol at 08:05 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
>>The modeling studies consistently found that for all four carbon tax policies considered, whether the revenue is returned via rebate checks of by offsetting income taxes, the direct economic impact is minimal:<<
As one or two comments above, I cannot for the life of me see the logic here.
Taxes are (or should be) a means of collecting revenue. Carbon taxes, however organised, are different: they should be, if you like, "punishment" for producing emissions. Returning the cash to the end user in any way reduces or eliminates this argument.
I wish those advocating carbon taxes would be honest about it, and affirm that they are there to deliberately make your emissions more expensive - there's no point otherwise.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
I may have indeed misinterpreted Jef's comment. My apologies if this was so.
-
nigelj at 06:46 AM on 18 July 2018SkS Analogy 13 - Water glasses and Greenhouse gases
I found it confusing for me reading an analogy followed by the physical laws when normally its around the other way around. But the analogy is good and the article is very clear.
I would suggest a link to the CC equation for us non physicists to examine or to refresh memories. Although its easily googled, so It's not a big issue.
Another related point is CO2 stays in the atmosphere for ages while water vapour has a short residence time, another reason why CO2 is regarded as the control knob.
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
I took a different message from Jef's statement. I think hes saying many useful things we want to do push up costs at least in the short term, but this doesn't make them the wrong things to do.
I think we just have to be philosophical and accept this, and of minimise costs as much as possible. It's clear carbon capture and storage has a cost for example, that it would be foolish to try to hide. However renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels in many locations.
Maybe I'm missinterpreting him, it wasn't too clear to me.
-
Jeffbennett at 06:06 AM on 18 July 2018Book Review: A Global Warming Primer, by Jeffrey Bennett
David, Daniel — Thanks so much for reviewing my book!
As to the footnote issue in the online version: Thanks for calling my attention to it. We now have them working again, though it's a mystery as to how they stopped working previously.
Jeff Bennett (jeff@bigkidscience.com)
-
John S at 04:20 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
bcpierce@5,
sounds also like an argument from special interests who want to get their hands on the revenue or (e.g. local politicians) who would enjoy giving it away to their pals for whatever green thing they want
but a moment's reflection reveals that the net benefit to those who receive dividends = (1) the dividends minus (2) the extra costs they pay because everything costs more, especially things with high embedded carbon: surely, then, they can figure out that maximum benefit will be realised by minimizing (2), i.e. minimizing purchases of everything, especially stuff with higher embedded carbon
it might also arise from a confusion about how much dividend each individual gets, i.e. supposing it is proportional to what they spend on carbon goods, not, as is correct, an equal amount, regardless of their consumption
-
michael sweet at 00:47 AM on 18 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
bcpierce,
I have only heard that argument from opponents of a carbon fee an dividend. It seems uneconomic to me to suppose people will spend more for energy to hope their dividend goes up. Since most energy is used by industry and the dividends go to individuals, the big users have no incentive to use more fossil fuel.
-
bcpierce14059 at 22:29 PM on 17 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
I've read arguments that returning carbon-tax dividends as rebates to taxpayers is problematic because it creates a perverse incentive to keep carbon emissions high (so that the rebates also remain high).
What do people think of this?
-
michael sweet at 18:46 PM on 17 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Jet:
I notice that you link no "comprehensive studies" that claim it is more expensive to use renewable energy. They exist only in your imigination.
Fortunately, all of the comprehensive studies like this and this have found that it is much cheaper to use renewable energy. They find that we will all be healthier, energy will be cheaper and the trillions of dollars of damages from climate change can be avoided using technologies that already exist.
You have just spouted the fossil fuel line. They have no supporting studies. Are you a bot for a denier think tank funded by the fossil fuel industry? If you read the comprehensive studies you will find out that we can implement a solution immediately and start saving money.
-
citizenschallenge at 13:44 PM on 17 July 2018Antarctica is gaining ice
Daniel Bailey, thanks for that summary, that was helpful.
Moderator Response:[DB] You're very welcome! I added some additional sources and explanatory texts to my comment above.
-
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 17 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Why increase the price of everything? The logical response to higher cost of goods embodying a carbon tax is move to goods that are untaxed. Just dropping the subsidies on FF would obviously increase the cost to consumer of FF, but you are currently paying for it anyway via taxes.
If you dont think the Stanford EMF model is correct, then what is the error in their model?
Furthermore, climate change is not free - look at your insurance premiums and expect it to get a lot worse if there isnt an effective policy to reduce carbon emisions.
-
jef12506 at 10:19 AM on 17 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
Comprehensive study: Increasing the price of absolutely everything won't hamper the economy.There, I made it more honest for you. Oh and .....WRONG!
Same thing is true with carbon capture.
Same thing is true with recycling.
Same thing is true with "renewable energy".
Same thing is true with Permaculture.
Samething is true with Localization.
I can go on and on but the point is that everything that we need to do that is "good" increases the cost, particularly because it can only happen if finance/capitalism makes it happen which doubles the cost of everything.
Even the most important thing we could to do, the one and only thing that will make a difference, DO LESS! makes everything way more expensive.
-
nigelj at 10:12 AM on 17 July 2018Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy
This study looks at economic history to try to find a statistically significant correlation between changes to tax rates and changes to economic growth, and only finds a very weak correlation at best.
My understanding is taxes are bad for the economy if they reduce innovation and push too many funds towards the services sector, but carbon tax and dividend would do the exact opposite, by generating innovation and mainly in the industrial, energy and transport sectors. Perhaps it would lead to a construction energy boom analogous to the New Deal in the 1930's.
-
fpjohn at 23:36 PM on 16 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
fpjohn at 34
"How is one to avoid being an alarmist while stating what is in fact alarming? Paul Beckwith, for instance, is presenting observations and stating their implications. Alarmist? yours Frank
0 0
Moderator Response:
[DB] Which observations and implications do you refer to?"Beckwith on Arctic Feedback is found on YouTube
Accelerating Effects of Arctic Feedback: 1 of 2
https://youtu.be/WVE_XG_tLpw
Moderator Response:[DB] Given that there is no written transcript nor any listed sources being cited, that is scarcely credible when compared to the rich body of published literature.
-
nigelj at 06:59 AM on 16 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
Michael Sweet @38, and I understand and agree with your point about supporting people like Hansen, to push back against the middle ground being labelled alarmist. But its a fine line because if we support people like Guy McPherson, I think this does damage credibility of science a bit. Its absurd to defend every person making huge claims.
-
nigelj at 06:44 AM on 16 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
Michael Sweet @38, I agree about Hansen. I can't bring myself to call him an alarmist, or to totally dismiss his claims, because there is some evidential basis for Hansens theories. Also although its unlikely that he is right about sea level rise, the small possibility he is right must be considered and not rubbished, because the consequences are so grave.
I understand your point about how Hansens theories have evolved and the IPCC is a little bit in catch up mode. I never labelled him an alarmist even in the early days because I hate the term, because its obviously meant to be demeaning. But like I said its probably not worth taking it personally.
But because the IPCC underestimates things doesnt mean all alarmists are right either.
I tend to agree with MA Rodgers conculsions on Wadham, but again you wont find me accusing him of alarmism as such. I would just say he hasn't sufficiently backed his case.
Definitions are important. Alarmism is normally defined as exaggeration or making claims without good reason. Like you said Hansen was on shaky ground in the early days, and probably did deserve to be dismissed as making implausible claims, but he has gained at least some support in the science community.
But if we are to use terms like alarmism, how much support in the scientific community is required to say someone is not an alarmist? Is one paper enough to demonstrate its not alarmism? I think it is, but only because nobody has firmly debunked Hansens claims, and instead they have simply stated that an awful lot of conditions would have to occur. But such conditions appear at least possible.
But genuine alarmist scientists are pretty uncommon. I put Guy McPherson in that category because his claims are too far fetched. There might be some almost infinitely small possibility he is right, but is that enough to give them credibility? I dont think its quite enough to mean anything. We could argue almost anything in life is possible with some almost infinitesimally small possibility, but don't we need something more than that for them to rise above alarmism?
I remember the ebola outbreak in Africa a year or so ago, and they were talking about possible exponential spread. To me this was possible and not alarmism, so in no way to I dismiss dangerous and / or extreme scenarios, provided theres a possible mechanism that makes sense.
-
MA Rodger at 02:40 AM on 16 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
michael sweet @38,
The idea that for AGW 'alarmist' is the antithesis of 'denier' is probably something that folk can think about signing up to. Thus the characteristics of an 'alarmist' is that they ignore the rest of the science and insist that they and only they are correct (something impassioned academics often have a hard time not doing) and this when they themselves have no appropriate evidential support for their position.
Taking that forward, Hansen did not have any proper support for his 5m SLR by 2100 under A1B until Hansen et al (2016). Now we have the basis for a hypothesis set out. And Hansen has always agreed that he is an outlier, even before the 2016 paper. To me, even if I find it hard to run with the hypothesis, I cannot brand Hansen as 'alarmist' over SLR. (Note that IPCC AR5 dismiss Hansen 2007 as being a heuristic argument that exceeds likely SLR limits set by other methods.)
Where Wadhams differs from this is in statements such as (from 2009) "The data supports the new consensus view" which he has consistently seen as an iceless Arctic summer by roughly 2030 but with effective ice-free summers appearing ten years earlier. The basis for this prediction is dismissed by IPCC in a simlar way to Hansen's SLR, but I don't see a lot of development in the underlying basis for Wadham's position which is always a worry. This, and the failure to accept it his is an outliers' view, for me makes the Wadham's position that of an 'alarmist'. In terms of science, this is not un-fixable (as is the individual denialist position on AGW had the individuals concerned a mind to try to fix it). It can also be seen that the IPCC consensus position (which is roughly that ice free summers require 2ºC of AGW to happen) is not presented with a great deal of confidence. Thus the Slingo prediction of 2012 adding that a date of 2025-30 was not impossible. So there is a case forsupporting the work of those with a 2020 finding. But I still baulk at the poor support for the Wadham's position. I therefore don't see it as scientifically in play even though the discussion at Neven's forum may suggest otherwise.
-
michael sweet at 00:03 AM on 16 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
Nigelj,
My point is that when Hansen originally made his projection that 5 meters sea level rise was a better estimate than the IPCC estimate many called him an alarmist. As time has passed the IPCC estimate has increased substantially while Hansen has maintained his top estimate. Current high sea level estimates by mainstream scientists approach Hansen's estimate and he no longer can be considered "alarmist". The original IPCC estimate (from around 1990) is clearly overly optimistic.
"Alarmist" scientific estimates are very rare. Meanwhile deniers like Lindzen, who in 1989 testified next to Hansen that he thought temperatures would stay unchanged, write Op-Ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal. Curry publishes bullshit about Hansens 1989 projections. The deniers claim that accurate projections are "alarmist".
We have to support scientists like Hansen and Waldhams when they speak their minds. Otherwise we contribute to the censorship of the majority scientific opinion that currently occurs.
In posts above I copied dates from other posts. On review I find that Waldhams projection originally comes from 2007 when he suggested that sea ice could be completely gone by 2016 +/- 3 years. Note his projection was made before the 2007 sea ice collapse. At the time mainstream projections for ice free were 50+ years in the future. He has maintained his projection to today wile mainstream projectins now are decadesw earlier than they were.
The mainstream has come closer to Waldham than they are to previous mainstream projections. Even if it is 2030 before the first ice free year, Waldham will have been much closer when he made the projection. Every January many of the posters on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum have long discussions about whether this year is finally the one where the ice will collapse. Waldham's projection is still in play, to call him an alarmist is to contribute to scientific censorship.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 15 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
I don't think Hansen is an alarmist, because theres a small possibility he could be right, as opposed to so infinitesimally small its absurd. But opinions clearly vary in the climate science community.
I think you also need visionaries that explore the outer limits of whats possible, but some claims have just been ridiculous, like claiming climate change could cause human extinction within 30 years. Temperatures would have to escalate massively, and even then small pockets of populations would survive in the colder regions.
I think a more plausibe scenario is sudden and very dangerous phase shifts in the climate, because it appears to have happened in past climates, although this might tend to be regional. But what regions? We don't really know. Nobody is safe.
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 15 July 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28
Another perspective on this years high temperatures from The Guardian.
“What’s unusual is the hemispheric scale of the heatwave,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “It’s not just the magnitude in any one location but that high temperatures are being seen over such a large area.”
-
michael sweet at 04:16 AM on 15 July 2018There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers
I think Dr. Waldhams has a good point. He has been deliberately insulted with the derogatory term "alarmist".
If we compare his original projection of 2013-2019 with the Met Office of the second half of the century (after 2050) which one appears more likely today? Why is it acceptable for a projection to be inacurate by being 50 years too late but alarmist to be 10 years too early?
We do not yet know when the Arctic will become ice-free. Until we know the result we do not know who will be closer to what actually happens. Dr. Walshams is sticking to his projection from 2012. The Met office has changed their projection from 2012 and made it decades earlier.
When Hansen first suggested that 5 meters sea level rise was possible most scientists rejected that idea. The IPCC projection was less than 0.5 meters. Hansen's recent paper, with 5 meters still one of the projections, had 19 co-authors. Many of those authors are sea level or glacier specialists. I saw a paper recently that projected a high maximum of 3 meters (sorry no cite). The US Climate report had a maximum of 8 feet (2.4 meters).
Every report increases the maximum. Hansen's old projection is clearly much closer to current projections of the top end than the IPCC was when he made his projection. Deniers continue to call Hansen "alarmist".
The graph from the OP sums it up:
Scientists who are well inside the top of scientific thought fall into the catastrophic range in the graph and are muzzled. It is unscientific to muzzle scientists who are in the range of scientific thought. Dr. Waldhams is at the top of scientific thought, but since he made his projection the mainstream thought has dramatically shifted in his direction. If we have melt conditions like 2007 next year who knows how low the ice could go.
Hansen's paper from 2007 on scientific reticence and projections being low-balled for political reasons is worth reading again. Time and again changes in the climate happen decades before scientists expected (arctic sea ice as a prime example). We frequently hear of reporters saying scientists will say in private converstions that they think things will go much worse than the IPCC reports. Calling those who say what they think "alarmists" is silencing everyone on the middle to right side of the graph, even though they are the majority of scientific opinion.
I generally agree with Dana but he missed the mark with this post.
-
MA Rodger at 01:19 AM on 15 July 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #25
PWadhams @2,
I'm not sure why you are having problems commenting on the 'There are genuine climate alarmists, but they're not in the same league as deniers' thread. The process is identical to that required to comment here.
I have thus responded to the substance of your comment on that thread.
Prev 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 Next
